You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. There are also more forums available to members, such as the Lounge - where members chat about just about anything under the sun except cricket!

It's not just the fact that he's got him, he's often got him after a sustained spell of working him over with some plays and misses from Punter until he's either nicked off or is comprehensively castled. There does look to be so much more from him, he can bowl up to 150kph when he cranks it up and so long as he is managed carfeully and gains strength (he is still blood scrawny) he will be some bowler. In the recent SA/Aus test one of the commentators compared him with Morkel saying how similar they are, but the range of skills that Sharma posesses outranks Morkel even though the later is a tad quicker at the mo.

__________________

Quote:

"One of the greatest problems of our time is that many are schooled but few are educated" - Thomas More

"From what I saw of the Australian attack the other day, what they bowled was absolute crap.

"Every one of them was terrible," said Thomson, Dennis Lillee's partner in crime during a career that reaped 200 Test scalps at 28.01.

"It looked like South Africa was playing a third-grade club attack. I'm not the only one who thinks that. What I saw the other night was just gun-barrel bowling. There was no creativity.

"The South African wickets are very similar to here, but they'd want to have something up their sleeve because at the moment how are they going to take 20 wickets to win a Test? We took two in 50 overs the other day, so maybe if we bowl 250 overs we'll get 10 wickets."

"You can't pick Shaun Tait, seriously. He runs out of puff in a limited-overs match. No way," Thomson said.

"They better not be taking that refugee from Queensland that plays in Sydney. Nathan Hauritz should be called Nathan Horror. Does he spin the ball? They have to take Jason Krejza, at least he turns the ball.

"Mitchell Johnson looks tired. He's bowling so round-arm at the moment you may as well call him Mitchell Malinga (a reference to Sri Lankan slinger Lasith Malinga)."

"From what I saw of the Australian attack the other day, what they bowled was absolute crap.

"Every one of them was terrible," said Thomson, Dennis Lillee's partner in crime during a career that reaped 200 Test scalps at 28.01.

"It looked like South Africa was playing a third-grade club attack. I'm not the only one who thinks that. What I saw the other night was just gun-barrel bowling. There was no creativity.

"The South African wickets are very similar to here, but they'd want to have something up their sleeve because at the moment how are they going to take 20 wickets to win a Test? We took two in 50 overs the other day, so maybe if we bowl 250 overs we'll get 10 wickets."

"You can't pick Shaun Tait, seriously. He runs out of puff in a limited-overs match. No way," Thomson said.

"They better not be taking that refugee from Queensland that plays in Sydney. Nathan Hauritz should be called Nathan Horror. Does he spin the ball? They have to take Jason Krejza, at least he turns the ball.

"Mitchell Johnson looks tired. He's bowling so round-arm at the moment you may as well call him Mitchell Malinga (a reference to Sri Lankan slinger Lasith Malinga)."

Edwards has played the most Tests, 37, while some have to just wait for an injury. Sharma has come in from nowhere and as they only play 2 fast bowlers in India, Patel, Sreesanth and RP Singh have to just wait. Pakistan on the other hand just don't get to play many Tests so Asif hasn't missed much. Southee is being kept for ODIs instead of Tests and now Franklin is back might have to wait a while.

Taylor has managed to get his average down from 35.14 to 32.56 by taking 8 wickets in the last Test. He does like bowling at home 26.30 to away 40.72.

He has had to bowl an extra 96.4 overs because of his no balls and that is not counting wides and I wonder who many wickets he has taken off a no ball.

Flintoff and Lee have both worked with Cooley and he hasn't seemed to have found the solution. Commentators who watch the nets say that many bowlers don't bother with getting their foot behind the line in practice and are told by them that they will in a match. Ray Jennings used to make the bowler run around the ground five times for every no ball they bowled in a match.

Then there are the ODIs which I haven't looked at but since the rule came in for a free hit the bowlers seem to have cut down on no balls.

Srinath says that India must identify their 3rd seamer and stick with him.

“But it is still musical chairs for the third seamer,” he said. “The longevity and form of Zaheer and Ishant will depend on what quality they get from the third seamer".

They have tried Pathan, Sreesanth, Patel and RP Singh. I think the best would be Munaf Patel.

We haven't even managed to identify our opening bowlers. When Gough and Caddick were our bowlers we couldn't find a permanent number 3 either. Harmison and Hoggard had Simon Jones for about 16 Tests.

In under two years the bowling has changed 17 times and we will be changing for the 18th time in the next Test. We are coming up to the Ashes and it is anyone's guess who the bowlers will be. Then there is a chance the new coach/manager might have a different idea on the selection. It is very unsettling for a bowler not knowing if he is playing or not and unsettling for the team. The longest run with the same bowlers was 6 Tests and even though it was New Zealand (5) and South Africa (1), there were no losses.

With Strauss looking like a horses for courses captain it looks like there will be more changes than ever.

1st Test - After being dropped in India, Harmison is picked because of Sabina Park's reputation of a fast wicket and the memory of his last Test here and also 4 late wickets in the warm up game. Turned out it didn't suit him.

2nd Test - Strauss expected a flat wicket so Anderson is picked for reverse swing and Harmison is dropped. Sidebottom comes in and as they expect lots of bowling he can get some more overs under his belt. The match is cancelled.

3rd Test - At the ARG where the wickets were bouncy when they practiced so Harmison back, Sidebottom out because they are looking for some faster bowling so Anderson back. The wicket if flat with an unusual ridge in the middle that bowlers concentrated on more than they should have.

All three times the pitch hasn't been what they expected. You can't guess what the wicket is going to be like before a game has started because it can be anything, the weather can also come into in. If there is rain and the outfield is wet there won't be any reverse swing. I think you need 5 bowlers who all offer something different so whatever the wicket, one or two bowlers will make the best use of it. Forget the horses for courses and the uncertainity among the bowlers. The spare fast bowler should be an injury replacement only.

When it comes playing the 3 tall bowlers together who all can get bounce what is the difference between them? They can all get runs but are hit and miss in that regard. All three are capable of getting the ball down at 90mph. At first glance one would say that Broad hasn't the experience of the other two but just the way he bowled in the 1st Test showed he is on their level.

Two swing, one with a left arm variation, two tall bowlers and a spinner seems to me a better idea than 1 swing, three tall and one spinner.

KYS, would agree with you over India possibly choosing Munaf over the rest, he offers good line and length with a bit of bounce at an OK sort of pace, a stock bowler if you like to the more attacking and pacey Ishant and swing orientated Zaheer. In fact that has the potential to be rather tasty indeed.

As regards England and bowling combinations I need say nothing more.

__________________

Quote:

"One of the greatest problems of our time is that many are schooled but few are educated" - Thomas More

Someone else agrees that we are going backwards with the chopping and changing of bowlers.

Yeah but part of the problem is that the bowlers who've been picked have gone backwards at an alarming rate. Given what is available I would keep Anderson, Broad and Swann in the side, but it is hard to justify a patently unfit Sidebottom, especially one who doesn't seem to suit those conditions.

__________________

Quote:

"One of the greatest problems of our time is that many are schooled but few are educated" - Thomas More

Yeah but part of the problem is that the bowlers who've been picked have gone backwards at an alarming rate. Given what is available I would keep Anderson, Broad and Swann in the side, but it is hard to justify a patently unfit Sidebottom, especially one who doesn't seem to suit those conditions.

Exactly. We need bowlers who can take twenty wickets and the present lot look like Angus Fraser on one of his bad days.

Yeah but part of the problem is that the bowlers who've been picked have gone backwards at an alarming rate. Given what is available I would keep Anderson, Broad and Swann in the side, but it is hard to justify a patently unfit Sidebottom, especially one who doesn't seem to suit those conditions.

Another part of the problem is we have been giving huige totals away for a long time. Really since the India series in 2007. Its a hot topic two years too late

He has had to bowl an extra 96.4 overs because of his no balls and that is not counting wides and I wonder who many wickets he has taken off a no ball.
Flintoff and Lee have both worked with Cooley and he hasn't seemed to have found the solution. Commentators who watch the nets say that many bowlers don't bother with getting their foot behind the line in practice and are told by them that they will in a match. Ray Jennings used to make the bowler run around the ground five times for every no ball they bowled in a match.

Then there are the ODIs which I haven't looked at but since the rule came in for a free hit the bowlers seem to have cut down on no balls.

The funny thing is that the commentators don't always see no-balls as a serious fault. They will wave one away saying it reflects the effort the bowler is putting in, as if the no-ball-free deliveries are somehow inferior. Not if the bowler bowls 2 or 3 in an over, though!

The funny thing is that the commentators don't always see no-balls as a serious fault. They will wave one away saying it reflects the effort the bowler is putting in, as if the no-ball-free deliveries are somehow inferior. Not if the bowler bowls 2 or 3 in an over, though!

That is because when the quick bowler strains to get the extra couple of mph on a particular delivery, it is likely that he will overstretch in the delivery stride and stray beyond the crease.